one is israel is a great ally, there's domestic political support for a strong relationship with israel. at the same time it's also supposed to be the kind of neutral arbiter, the mediator in the region that will bring this about. it seems we don't do a good job of playing those two rules. >> well those two roles have also been intentioned, they've grown more intentioned over time. you had eight years of an administration that really gave up on trying to play the arbiter role, at which point the figure leaf kind of came away. the administration did a great job actually tactically, playing both of those roles in a way that they hadn't done at all during the first term, sending the secretary of state out to be the arbiter while the president could give the defender of israel speeches like that that's a tactical solution that doesn't get anywhere near the long-term structural problem that it isn't the same middle east that it was five years ago. what do you do instead? how do you serve the long-term interests of israel, especially when maybe many americans don't see israel's long-term inte